This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/24/2019 at 03:53:40 (UTC).

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB VS THOMAS LEE

Case Summary

On 07/07/2017 INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against THOMAS LEE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7721

  • Filing Date:

    07/07/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 10

POWELL SALAINDRA DOROTHY

LEE THOMAS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HAINES TODD F. ESQ.

HAINES TODD FREDERICK ESQ.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF RULING RE; CONTINUANCE OF FSC

6/13/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE; CONTINUANCE OF FSC

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/16/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

8/24/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Minute Order

12/21/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/28/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

1/28/2019: Unknown

Judgment

5/23/2019: Judgment

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

11/13/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

SUMMONS

7/7/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR MONEY (AUTOMOBILE SUBROGATION-INCLUDES DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY)

7/7/2017: COMPLAINT FOR MONEY (AUTOMOBILE SUBROGATION-INCLUDES DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY)

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

9/29/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/23/2019
  • Default Judgment; Filed by Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • at 4:32 PM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order Re Denying Request for Default Judgment without P...) of 01/28/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order Re Denying Request for Default Judgment without P...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2018
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2018
  • Minute Order ((Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2018
  • Default Entered; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2018
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2018
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • NOTICE OF RULING RE; CONTINUANCE OF FSC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • Default Entered; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2017
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR MONEY (AUTOMOBILE SUBROGATION-INCLUDES DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC667721    Hearing Date: December 04, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

THOMAS LEE, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC667721

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

December 4, 2019

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club filed this action against Defendants, Thomas Lee and Salaindra Dorothy Powell for subrogation arising out of an accident with its insured.  Plaintiff filed the complaint on 7/07/17.  On 7/16/18, Plaintiff filed proof of service of the summons, complaint, and related documents on Powell via substitute service on “Mrs. Power-Mother, Occupant (Person Apparently in Charge)” at 550 W. 16th St. Apt.19, San Pedro, CA 90731.  The proof of service included a declaration of diligence, which showed the process server made six prior attempts to serve Powell.  On one such attempt, a person named Andrea answered the door and stated that Powell was unknown at the address.

On 8/24/18, the Clerk entered Powell’s default.  On 5/23/19, the Court entered judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against each of the two defendants.  Because Powell was only sued as the driver, the judgment against her was limited to $15,000 plus costs of suit.

2. Motion to Vacate Default

a. Defendant’s Position

On 10/24/19, Powell filed this motion to vacate the default and default judgment entered against her.  She declares she did not live at the subject address when she was purportedly served.  She declares she had lived at that address previously, but moved out in January of 2018.  She provides account statements showing she was receiving mail at 1138 W. 60th Place, LA, CA 90044 at the time she was purportedly served with the summons and complaint.  She declares her mother also did not live at the San Pedro service address.  Finally, she declares she recently learned of this lawsuit when she ran into her ex-boyfriend, who had been driving the car involved in the accident, and he mentioned the lawsuit and judgment to her.

Powell also includes a declaration from her mother, Sandra Elaine Jones.  Jones declares she does not now and never did reside at the subject address in San Pedro.  She declares she has never gone by Powell or Power, as her last name is Jones. 

b. Plaintiff’s Opposition

Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing Defendant’s declaration is disingenuous and should not be believed.  Plaintiff also argues Defendant should have submitted a declaration from her mother if she wanted credibility.  Plaintiff also argues Defendant failed to show diligence in bringing the motion for relief.  Finally, Plaintiff argues §473(b), the only stated basis for the motion, does not give rise to relief.

c. Reply

Any reply to the opposition was due on or before 11/25/19.  The Court has not received a reply to the opposition. 

d. Analysis

Plaintiff is correct in its assertion that this is not a proper motion under §473(b), and that it does not meet the standard for relief under that section.  §473(b) governs motions to be relieved from default or default judgment based on mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect.  Defendant’s motion is based on lack of service, which is not a ground for relief under §473(b).  Additionally, while not mentioned in Plaintiff’s opposition, the motion is not timely, as it is not made within six months after the Clerk entered Defendant’s default.

The Court is, however, very concerned that Defendant was not served with the summons and complaint.  The Court finds Defendant’s declaration credible.  Plaintiff fails to address the actual evidence provided with the declaration, and fails to address the fact that even the declaration of diligence contains a representation that Defendant does not reside at the purported service address.  Plaintiff argues Defendant failed to submit a declaration from her mother, but the motion is very much accompanied by a declaration from Defendant’s mother, which is also credible.

This should be a motion to vacate the default as void in light of lack of service.  Because the motion is not made on that ground, it is denied. The denial is without prejudice to Defendant’s right to bring a motion to vacate a void judgment.  The Court strongly encourages the parties to agree to set aside the default and default judgment as void and to permit Defendant to answer and defend the action.

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.